Evidence submitted by Zoe Baril, WhatleyRecordon
(LAR 91)
I have considered in detail the consultation
documentation relating to the proposed changes to fee structures
in public law children proceedings, and have discussed this with
our Managing Partner.
It is fair to say that if the proposals put
forward by Lord Carter are put into effect by the LSC then it
will become impossible for this firm to continue taking on public
law children work, as the fees proposed (even in their amended
form) would render it completely uneconomic so to do. I have spoken
personally to a number of solicitors in Worcestershire who are
currently engaged in this work, and I have found no-one who would
be prepared to do the work under the new scheme, irrespective
of the size of their firm, their level of seniority or the nature
of their overall workload.
I have worked in the field of public law children
proceedings for the past 13 years, in London, Coventry and Worcestershire;
and in both local government and private practice. I am a member
of the Law Society Children Panel and I am currently working in
private practice in Malvern, Worcestershire. Therefore, I consider
that I have a level of experience of this area of work which enables
me to make some comment that may be useful to the Commission in
considering the way forward.
In my view, it is not the level of fees or the
way in which these are costed that needs to be reviewed, as the
priority for reducing overspend in this area. Instead, what should
be done is to look carefully at the way that the Court system
operates. By and large, solicitors working in this field are highly
efficient and motivated to achieve the correct outcome for children
and families who are made subject to care proceedings. As profit
margins are already incredibly low (by comparison with privately
funded work), work is undertaken on the basis of necessity rather
than choice; and there appears in my experience to be very little
in the way of extraneous or unnecessary correspondence. However,
the nature of most clients in the field is such that a considerable
amount of time and effort is needed to take instructions and prepare
documentation, bearing in mind that issues such as mental health
and learning difficulties, as well as drug and alcohol related
problems are often a feature.
If one could find a weakness in the system in
terms of efficiency, it must lie with the Courts. It is so often
the case that parties are required to travel a great distance
to Court (in the provinces at least) and are then faced with a
Court list that inevitably results in long delays and difficulties
in resolving matters speedily. For example, I was recently required
to travel to Redditch on a Malvern case that should have been
heard in Worcester. Therefore, all four solicitors were obliged
to travel an extra 45 miles each (hence 180 miles) to Court than
would otherwise have been necessary, purely because the Court
had been unable to list the matter at the local Court. The net
effect of that was that the time engaged (and thus funded by the
LSC) was far more significant than necessary. This is not an isolated
incident and this is merely one example of many I could cite.
Even where hearings are held at the Court local
to the parties involved in the case in question, the shortage
of judiciary in our local County Court is such that the lists
tend to be overloaded and there is often considerable difficulty
in listing matters expeditiously; and even final hearings are
often delayed in starting due to overlisting. This has been the
case in all the areas of the country in which I have worked. However,
I do know that solicitors are mindful of listing problems when
timetabling cases and do their best to work co-operatively with
Court staff. Ultimately, none of this is within the control of
solicitors.
Care work is highly stressful and demanding
given the type of clients involved and the issues which all concerned
are forced to confront on a daily basis. At present this work
is undertaken by a group of practititioners who do so for limited
reward and without any form of funded therapeutic support (unlike
other professionals such as the police). The arguments as to cost
levels are not, in my view, about what is profitable and what
is less so. Instead, under the current proposals, I reiterate
that the work will become impossible for firms like mine to take
on. That will leave parents and children without representation,
and thus there will in effect no longer be any check or balance
on the actions of local authorities in care proceedings as there
is under the current system. This will have the effect of depriving
clients of access to justice in an area in which they desperately
need representation to protect their ECHR rights.
Consequently, I would ask you to reconsider
the current funding proposals; and I would be happy to provide
further information should you so require
October 2006
| 
